Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2
Mar 26, 2013 8:00am PDT
love knows no color. it knows no religion. we know that love most especially knows no gender. >> so that was the sound moments ago from outside the u.s. supreme court. we're looking at live images right now of a pro-equality rally that's taking and continuing on on the court steps. the arguments over proposition 8 are expected to wrap up any moment. we have unconfirmed reports that they have just wrapped up. as soon as they do, we hope to get a live report from our justice correspondent pete williams, who's been inside that courtroom. basically, across the wires we've been learning it was mainly chief justice john roberts talking to ted olson, who was trying to have proposition 8, in working with david boies, struck down, saying the meaning of marriage in same-sex couples, chief justice roberts was asking, are they trying to redefine the word marriage? pete williams is inside the courtroom. he joins us now. let's talk about what came up, and how heavily was the 1967 case, loving versus virginia, referenced? >> reporter: let me begin at the beginning. i obviously haven't heard any of
Mar 24, 2013 12:00pm PDT
put up to a sproept freedom to speech, freedom of religion, freedom to smaer not something we take votes on. it belongs to all of us under the constitution and that is why we have court. >> freedom to marry belongs to everyone, but what marriage is, you're talking about redefining marriage. >> marriage is not defined by who's denied it. >> this isn't "cross fire." i want to end with you. go ahead. >> an odd way to think about constitutional law to sap that the court should refrain from deciding whether something is constitutional or not, even if it would be advantageous for the nation as a whole to have the conversation continue in politics. the court is a passive body. it doesn't get to decide whether to take a case, also doesn't get to decide once a case is befores it, granted review to punt on that case simply because the politician conversation vo continue. something is either constitutional or it's not. >> and they are constitution. >> it's difficult to predict what the high court lieutenant do -- will do in a case like this, based on obama care. what can's we glean from what
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2